People on Complaint of Dell v. Greenberg
| Decision Date | 21 May 1958 |
| Citation | 174 N.Y.S.2d 803,12 Misc.2d 396 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York on the Complaint of Detective John DELL v. Arthur D. GREENBERG and John Slevin, Defendants. City Magistrates' Court of City of New York, Lower Manhattan District, Borough of Manhattan |
| Court | New York Magistrate Court |
John Maguire, New York City, for the people.
Benjamin Solovay, Brooklyn, for defendants.
STEPHEN S. SCOPAS, City Magistrate.
Defendants have been charged with violation of Sec. 436-1.0 of the Administrative Code entitled 'Regulations of dance halls and cabarets; licensing thereof'.
The defense has been advanced that John Slevin, one of the co-defendants herein, was only an employee; that he has no interest or part in the operation of the premises in question; and that he acted only as a doorman. His co-defendant, Arthur Greenberg, admits that he has been in charge, control and direction of the premises; and that, moreover he was present thereat when the summons was served upon John Slevin. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court finds John Slevin, co-defendant herein, not guilty and discharged.
The Court is, therefore, concerned only with the innocence or guilt of Arthur Greenberg, charged with violating Sec. 436-1.0 of the Administrative Code, which reads as follows:
'1. The words 'public dance hall' shall mean any room, place or space in the city in which dancing is carried on and to which the public may gain admission, either with or without the payment of a fee.
'2. The words 'public dance or ball' shall mean any dance or ball of any nature or descrition to which the public may gain admission.
'3. The word 'cabaret' shall mean any room, place or space in the city in which any musical entertainment, singing, dancing or other similar amusement is permitted in connection with the restaurant business or the business of directly or indirectly selling to the public food or drink. * * *.
* * *
* * *
* * *.
The Police Department first became aware of the defendant's activity when the following advertisement was observed in the 'New York Post':
Said advertisement was received in evidence and marked 'People's Exhibit 1'. Detective John Dell responded to this advertisement by calling the number in question. Upon calling said number he was advised to go to the Hotel Nassau on East 59th Street, to obtain a ticket. He paid $3 thereat to a male identified as 'Bill' and was given a ticket to go to the apartment located at 202 East 61st Street. Upon arriving at the apartment on the 21st day of February of this year at approximately 9 P.M., he was admitted and received by the defendant. He was then asked his name by the defendant who then proceeded to collect a ticket previously obtained from 'Bill'. He was told to make himself at home and to make the acquaintance of a girl. Music was made on a phonograph. About 35 persons were present, equally divided more or less between the sexes. Five couples were dancing; others were engaged in conversation; and still others were eating and drinking punch, hot chocolate, pretzels, cookies or candy bits.
When Detective Dell identified himself and served the defendant with a summons, the defendant admitted that he received all the moneys and that he was in charge of the premises. From the proceeds, defendant stated that all expenses were defrayed for rent, advertisements, telephone, towels and soap and legal fees.
The apartment was a railroad type apartment of three rooms consisting of a livingroom, a kitchen and a room in the rear in which there were two chairs, two couches and a phonograph and a tape recording machine. It is conceded that there was no live music or entertainment furnished and that no alcoholic beverages were served. In his defense, Arthur Greenberg testified that his main objective was to form a club for the purpose of promoting the mingling of eligible young unmarried men and women with the ultimate object of matrimony. He testified that he contemplated the forming of a regular chartered club; that the card entitling persons admission to the party contained the legend:
'Probationary membership card' and
'East Side Friend's Club'
He maintained further that he was able to screen persons desiring to attend his parties through the conversations had over the telephone preceding their referral to 'Bill' for their admission card; that after a person attended three parties and was otherwise found eligible, he would qualify for permanent membership at an annual fee of $10. Fees paid during the probationary period were to be credited against this amount.
It was the contention of the defendant that he did not pay for the refreshments but that female members volunteered to furnish them. He stated that more than half who called his telephone number were rejected because of marital status, age or impression made upon him over the telephone. He categorically denied any intention to conduct a public dance or cabaret.
On cross-examination he admitted that there were no other officers in his club other than himself as president, and his sister as secretary and treasurer; that there were no formal application blanks or constitution and by-laws in existence; and that no petition had as yet been filed for a charter. No business meetings had ever been held; and no board of directors had ever been elected. He stated that he had registered the trade name of 'West Side Young Folks' Club' with the County Clerk New York County, but admitted that all moneys from this operation were deposited to his individual name. He also stated that he resided in an apartment on the West Side and that he had rented the apartment in question solely for the purpose hereinbefore mentioned.
While the pertinent provisions under the Administrative Code became effective on January 1, 1927, a careful review of the authorities indicates a dearth of reported cases on the issues involved herein. Perhaps the issues have been of fact rather than law. In any event, our Courts have invariably looked into the historical background of laws which are before them for interpretation in order to have the benefit of the legislative intent.
Present cabaret and dance hall laws and regulations stem from legislation introduced in the Municipal Assembly on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People on Complaint of Hughes v. Ziegler
...drapes, curtains and scenery. Hence, no circumvention by ruse or subterfuge exists here as was emphasized in People v. Greenberg, 12 Misc.2d 396, 174 N.Y.S.2d 803, 809. In People v. Feldman, 178 Misc. 322, 34 N.Y.S.2d 182 the Court emphasized that since the license applies to the premises, ......
-
Carroll v. Hastings
...food or drink." The important public interests which lie behind the cabaret licensing requirements are described in People v. Greenberg, 12 Misc.2d 396, 174 N.Y.S.2d 803 (reviewing the history of the law). It is thus readily understandable why failure to comply with the cabaret licensing or......
-
People v. Rickoff
...the entertainment period. More to the point are cases such as People v. Feldman, 178 Misc. 322, 34 N.Y.S.2d 182, and People Greenberg, 12 Misc.2d 396, 174 N.Y.S.2d 803. The fact that the transgression here was innocuous, or perhaps socially desirable, is not an appropriate consideration. Th......